Conservative Christianity’s “Come to Jesus” Moment in Wake of Elliot Rodger Shootings
Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)
editing to add this: If this thread turns into a shitstorm having nothing to do with the SOP, I'm going to delete it.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7898/conservative_christianity_s__come_to_jesus__moment_in_wake_of_elliot_rodger_shootings/
May 27, 2014
Devin Kuhn-Choi
Devin Kuhn-Choi is an Assistant Professor in the Religious Studies program and the Women’s & Gender Studies Department at California State Polytechnic University in San Luis Obispo, CA. Her research examines intersections between contemporary Christianity, sexuality and popular culture.
In the wake of the tragic massacre at UCSB on Friday night in which Elliott Rodger murdered 6 people and injured 13 more before taking his own life, much has been written about Rodger’s motivations for the murders. In a series of misogynist, racist posts, videos and a 141-page manifesto he sent to media, Rodger outlined plans for what he called his “Day of Retribution.”
Many commentators have rightfully critiqued Rodger’s horrific actions as examples of extreme misogyny and even terrorism. His response to feelings of isolation, alienation, misogyny and racism is extreme and inexcusable, but perhaps it is also the extreme endpoint of a culture that, as sociologist Michael Kimmel argues, demands an impossible standard of masculinity (and then denigrates all those who do not live up to it—be they women, non-heterosexual, non-cismales, or the men who do not or cannot achieve these impossible standards.)
If, as Kimmel points out, masculinity is a “nightmare” from which men do not awaken that establishes impossible standards of masculinity, leaving most men feeling inadequate, why does society continue to reinforce these standards?
Many commentators have discussed the “pick up artist” (PUA) culture in which Rodger’s ideology is based, but broader cultural forces shape the exaggerated ideas of gender roles that are the foundation of Rodger’s misguided notions of masculinity and entitlement—including most conservative Christian constructions of strict gender roles. Though they approach beliefs about masculinity from different perspectives, both PUA and contemporary portrayals of conservative Christian masculinity share some similar points. Rodger himself was not directly influenced by conservative Christianity, and I do not mean to imply he was. Rather, what I want to suggest through these comparisons is a larger cultural framework that shapes American notions of masculinity and sexuality.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
artists. Most of them base their skills on a couple tricks, including (pseudoscience) claims of neuro-linguistic programming.
Let's hypothetically assume it works (it doesn't, but they earnestly claim it does). If you could say certain things, in certain ways, to override a person's freely developed thoughts and feelings, how is that viewed differently than some asshole dropping Rohypnol into a girl's drink? The NLP promoters claim to be able to drop a person into a suggestible, hypnotic state. To externally re-write their thought processes.
What's the difference? Sounds to me like these are the same motherfuckers people should be running head-first into a wall for drug facilitated sexual assault, except they are using (they claim) a form of hypnosis to accomplish it.
This is a wide-spread advocated technique in the 'pick up artist' community. Did no one think this through, to the logical moral conclusion, if it worked at all?
Is it morally acceptable to drop drugs that *don't work* into girl's drinks?
